[MD] Ham thinks the MOQ is a form of phenomenology

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hello Mark --

<snip>

Everything is represented in Essence which is the source of  everything.  But
Essence itself is not articulated, "multi-level" or  differentiated in any
way.  So what you may see as "a great deal"  embodied in Essence is simply
Ham speaking in the relativistic terms of human  comprehension, not a literal
"description".  Curiously, you apparently  think that not being able to
define a metaphysical concept is a plus.
 
Mark: Hello Ham.
Aristotle invented all this stuff to try and explain why a seed grows into  a 
tree.
He said the tree was in the seed as a potential tree which in growing  became 
an actualised tree.
The final cause of the tree as teleological goal is in the seed, and  the 
efficient cause is the planting of the seed.
This is Physics - nature - phusis.
Aristotle simply applied his system to the cosmos and poof! We have  
Metaphysics.
Now, the seed becomes a metaphor for all being, and the same  concepts which 
were invented for the seed are applied to God.
You are growing reality from abstract axioms like an Oak tree grows from a  
tree, and it's all conceptual.
Highly imaginative, with allot of empirical observation of biological  
entities, but don't forget where Nicholas de Cusa belongs Ham?
Old Nic belongs with the egg heads who get off on inventing new ways of  
rationalising everything.
 
<snip>

Ham: No, not completely.  I like to say I've "borrowed a little"  here and 
there.
 
Mark: A little? A whole Western tradition so ingrained in our culture as to  
be invisible.
Talk about dead metaphors.

Ham: You flatter me too much; there is no way that this thesis could  qualify
for University level teaching. In fact, two philosophy professors  who
offered to review it and make suggestions have already bowed out.   They
don't include Bob Pirsig who at least sent me a note acknowledging  our
"similarities".
 
Mark: Maybe it's too close to your borrowed sources? I don't intend to be a  
swine, but why teach Ham when you can teach Aristotle?
There's so much Aristotle in your thesis i doubt if it could be taught  until 
third year undergraduate anyway.
Still, your synthesis may be a valuable step forward in the  tradition.
I don't see why someone could not teach it.

<snip>

Ham: Your meaning of "good" here escapes me.  Do you mean good as  a 
philosophy
thesis, good as a "valid" theory, or good as in "high  quality"?  It's good
insofar as it has impressed you.  Other than  that, I don't know how to
answer you.
 
Mark: The Metaphysics of Quality aims to be provide a sure basis for  
answering these questions.
Aristotle tried to define the Good rationally.
This is why people, like yourself find logic more real than Quality.
(You admit value after logically establishing  it.)

<snip>

Ham: That may be.  However, it's the  subject, not the object, that 
experiences
the pain.
 
Mark: Pain is a biological pattern of value for sure according to the  MoQ.

<snip>

Ham: What do you mean by an "immediate  experience"?
As far as I'm concerned it means what I experience now.   All experience
occurs in the present, unless you are recalling something from  the past.
And if I have to "deduce" myself every time I have an experience, I  think
I'd choose to avoid them.  Suppose I miscalculated and deduced  somebody
else's experience?
 
Mark: By immediate experience i mean DQ and by deduce i mean the sq  patterns 
of our entire Western philosophical tradition of Substance.

<snip>

Ham: I wouldn't put "imaginary experiences" in the  same category as pain.
 
Mark: They are equally real. Pragmatically they may not be of equal  value.
Imaginary tooth ache does not carry with it problems of infection.
 
Ham: We've
gone around this bush before, but I still maintain that value  is realized
subjectively, which means the subject has to exist to experience  it.
 
Mark: By subject you mean Mental Substance.
Therefore, by Object you mean Material Substance.
Pain is a particular state of Material Substance which can be empirically  
verified, (burns) as can sound waves, 'Ouch!'
The experience of Pain is a particular state of Mental Substance and has to  
be taken on faith by scientists because it can't be empirically verified.
Therefore values, (value is realized subjectively, which means the  subject 
has to exist to experience it...) can't be empirically verified.
Therefore all values are subjective and there is no scientific method of  
establishing morality.
The MoQ replaces Substance with patterns value.
Values are experienced in four ways: Hydrogen Molecules are patterns of  
Inorganic values, DNA are patterns of Biological values, Laws and Institutions  
are patterns of Social values and Science is patterns of Intellectual  values.
This allows a hierarchy of moral codes to be distinguished on the basis of  
evolutionary priority which can be empirically verified to have been beneficial 
 to life.
 
Ham: Scientific (objective) knowledge, as I've previously said, is  
significant
because it has universal validity.
 
Mark: No. Valid because it is value free, i.e. Not subjective.
Love has Universal validity but science has nothing to say about it because  
Love is subjective isn't it?
Is the Law of Gravity more important than Love?
 
Ham: Its "commonality" does give it
practicality; it enables us to  understand the universal principles of the
physical world and apply them to  the enhancement of our existence.
 
Mark: The commonality of Love isn't practical Ham?

<snip>

Ham: You've lost me with the wall behind the  Rembrandt.  As various 
estheticians
have
concluded, Beauty (or  Quality) in art has both objective and subjective
correlates.
 
Mark: Define Quality for me please Ham?

Ham: One can say that a work has artistic merit on the basis of its  balance 
of
features, color palette, rendering of detail, visual perspective,  etc.
These are all objective criteria.  But the appreciation of its  Beauty
(Quality) is subjective.
 
Mark: Who taught Rembrandt, '...balance of features, color palette,  
rendering of detail, visual perspective, etc.?'
Who taught Charles Dickens how to write so as to be regarded as one of the  
finest authors in the English language?

<snip>

Ham: Again, I find this epistemology incomprehensible.
 
Mark: Then do something about it.
Stop thinking and experience Remrandt.
Stop analysing and experience beauty.
Use your imagination.

<snip snip snippity snip>

Ham:  I'd be more likely to say, "the bastard has disregarded everything I  
said!"
Actually, I'd be honored if you were to plagiarize my material!
 
Mark: In order for me to be able to sincerely state that i value the MoQ  
more than Ham's Essentialism i first of all have to understand Ham's  
Essentialsim enough to satisfy it's author that i do indeed understand his  Essentialism.

Mark:
> In my experience the reaction has been complete  silence!
> Sometime silence can be deafening.

Well, I see that you  have at least one admirer in Marsha. ;-}

Cheers and good  luck,
Ham
 
Mark: I think it's the MoQ Marsha admires.
Love,
Mark